Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:21:57.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fetal Tissue Transplantation Policy in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Dorothy E. Vawter*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, USA
Get access

Extract

After decades of supporting fetal tissue research, in March, 1988 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) banned the use of federal funds for fetal tissue transplantation research in humans involving tissue from electively aborted fetuses. The ban was not imposed because it is unethical to transplant tissue from electively aborted fetuses; such tissue may be transplanted into animals. Nor was it imposed because it is unethical for women to donate tissue after elective abortion; women may donate such tissue for purposes other than transplantation into humans. The ban was narrowly focused on the transplantation of tissue from electively aborted fetuses into humans. It stemmed from two beliefs: (1) that it is wrong for women to abort their fetuses for the purpose of donation, and (2) that there is no way to prevent women from aborting their fetuses for the purpose of donation if the tissue may be donated for transplantation.

Type
Update
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Charrow, R.P. (1991). “Fetal Tissue Transplantation Ban: Illegal Political Solution to a Moral Problem.” Journal of NIH Research 3:2024.Google Scholar
Childress, J.F. (1991). “Deliberations of the Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel.” In Hanna, K.E. (ed.), Biomedical Politics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Congressional Record (1992). S 16578. October 5.Google Scholar
Consultants to the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health (1988). Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel, Volume I. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
Garry, D.J., Caplan, A.L., Vawter, D.E., and Kearney, W. (1992). “Are There Really Alternatives to the Use of Fetal Tissue from Elective Abortions in Transplantation Research?” New England Journal of Medicine 327(22):15921595.Google Scholar
Goldberg, J. (1992). “Who Gets to Play God?” Life 15(2):54.Google Scholar
Hilts, P. (1990). “U.S. Aides See Shaky Legal Basis for Ban on Fetal Tissue Research.” New York Times (January 30).Google Scholar
Kearney, W., Vawter, D.E., and Gervais, K.G. (1991). “Fetal Tissue Research and the Misread Compromise.” Hastings Center Report 21(5):712.Google Scholar
Mahoney, M.J. (1975). “The Nature and Extent of Research Involving Living Human Fetuses.” In the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Research on the Fetus: Appendix. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 76-128.Google Scholar
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1975). Research on the Fetus: Report and Recommendations. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 76-127.Google Scholar
Slotnick, N. and Harrison, M. (1991). Congressional Testimony. HR 1532 Research on Transplantation of Fetal Tissue, April 15.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1975). 45 CFR 46 Subpart B.Google Scholar
Walden, G. (1991). Congressional Testimony. HR 1532 Research on Transplantation of Fetal Tissue, April 15.Google Scholar
Windom, R. (1988). Memorandum to Director, National Institutes of Health, March 22. Reprinted in Consultants to the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health, Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel, Volume II. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, December, 1988.Google Scholar
York, M. (1992). “Fetal-Tissue Research Ban is Challenged: Medical, College Groups File Suit After Legislative Effort is Vetoed.” Washington Post (October 22).Google Scholar